Linguistic genocide and the Deaf Tove Skutnabb-Kangas Roskilde University, Denmark, and Åbo Akademi University Vasa, Finland www.ruc.dk/~tovesk/ [email protected]

Contents

1. Oralism in the education of Deaf children is linguistic genocide 2. Sign languages and Killer languages 3. Advice on cochlear implants and other issues 4. Glorification, stigmatisation, rationalisation - how are Deaf resources constructed as invisible and as handicaps? 5. Where are the linguistic human rights (LHRs) of the Deaf in education? 5.1. What are Linguistic Human Rights? 5.2. The relationship between education, high levels of multilingualism and creativity 5.3. Educational LHRs in international law 5.4.Arguments used for excluding Sign languages from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 5.4.1. The arguments 5.4.2. Are the Deaf a linguistic minority? 5.4.3. Are Sign languages minority languages? 6. What Linguistic Human Rights should Deaf children have in education? This article is written on the basis of my PowerPoint presentation at the World Congress of the World Federation of the Deaf, July 2003. It was an oral presentation which was interpreted to several Sign languages and some other spoken languages. I wanted it to be understandable for most people who are experts on Deafness - as all the Deaf participants and many of the hearing signing participants were but who are not necessarily experts on all the scientific disciplines that I drew on in the presentation. I have tried to keep the simple language of the presentation in this written version too. My first message to Deaf people was and is: YOU are the best experts. Do not let ANY hearing (and especially hearing non-signing) "experts" (including myself) tell you what to do! YOU have to decide; you know what is best for you and for Deaf children and young people. There has been enough paternalism and "expert" power. Take back the power to decide yourself about your own affairs.

1. Oralism in the education of Deaf children is linguistic genocide According to a medical, pathological view, the Deaf are a deficient handicap group. This view should never be used - it is degrading and does not respect the human rights of the Deaf. Instead, we should use a sociocultural and legal view which is also an empowering view. According to this view, the Deaf are a linguistic minority. This also agrees with definitions in international law. Regardless of which definition of a linguistic minority is used (and there are several), the Deaf are a linguistic minority according to definitions in international law. How are linguistic minorities educated today in the formal education system? Indigenous children, and linguistic minority children (like Deaf children), and children from dominated groups are in most cases taught SUBTRACTIVELY. What is subtractive teaching?

Table 1. Subtractive versus additive teaching SUBTRACTIVE teaching: children are taught in submersion programmes through the medium of a dominant language which replaces their mother tongue. They learn the dominant language at the cost of the mother tongue. ADDITIVE teaching: children are taught through the medium of the mother tongue, with good teaching of the dominant language as a second language. Other languages are learned in addition to the mother tongue. It makes them HIGH LEVEL BILINGUAL or MULTILINGUAL. They learn their own language AND other languages WELL. If children are being taught subtractively, what does it do to them?

Table 2. What does subtractive teaching do? -

Subtractive teaching replaces mother tongues and kills languages It prevents profound literacy It prevents students from gaining the knowledge and skills that would correspond to their innate capacities and would be needed for socio-economic mobility & democratic participation. It is genocidal, according to UN Genocide Convention’s definitions of genocide.

When people hear the term Genocide, most of them ask: Is the term not too strong? How can one use it about something that does not involve physical killing of groups? We have to define the term, in order for people to be able to decide whether the claim about genocidal education is true or not. The United Nations International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E793, 1948) has five definitions of genocide. Three of them are about physical killing whereas two of them are not, and it is these definitions two that fit today’s indigenous & minority education: Article II(e): 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'; and Article II(b): 'causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group'; (emphasis added).

My claim is that oralism in Deaf education is genocidal according to these United Nations definitions of genocide. I also want to look at causal factors: who are the agents of genocide? My claim here is that educational systems and mass media are (the most) important direct agents in linguistic and cultural genocide. Behind them are the world’s economic, techno-military and political systems. This means, then, that most indigenous and minority education in the world participates in committing linguistic and cultural genocide, according to the genocide definitions in the UN Genocide Convention. Assimilationist education is genocidal. Many researchers have described cases where oral indigenous or minority children have lost their language because they have been taught subtractively, through the medium of a dominant language, in an educational programme which has tried to assimilate them. Many immigrant minority children have lost their language in as short a time as one generation, so that they as adults, for instance, are no longer able to speak to their parents. Pirjo Janulf shows in her longitudinal study that of those Finnish immigrant minority members in Sweden who had had Swedishmedium education, not one spoke any Finnish to their own children. That means that even if they themselves might not have forgotten their Finnish completely, their children were certainly forcibly transferred to the majority group, at least linguistically. And this is what happens to millions of oral speakers of threatened languages all over the world. For oral minority students education through the medium of a dominant majority language leads to the students using the dominant language with their own children later on. Over a generation or two the children are linguistically and often in other ways too forcibly transferred to a dominant group; they are linguistically and culturally assimilated. Since there are no alternatives in formal education, namely schools or classes which teach mainly through the medium of the threatened indigenous or minority languages, the transfer to the majority language speaking group happens by force; it is not voluntary. For it to be voluntary, alternatives should exist, and parents would need to have enough reliable information about the long-term consequences of the various choices. None of these conditions are usually fulfilled for indigenous or minority parents and children, i.e. the situations where children lose their first language, can often be characterised as genocide. Since most Deaf children are born to hearing parents, their situation is different here, though. Parents and children do not have the same mother tongue, and many of the Deaf children are in their turn going to have hearing children. In Table 3 I compare the forcible transfer that happens in education for two groups: oral indigenous or minority children who are taught through the medium of a dominant or majority language, and Deaf children of hearing parents who are taught through oral methods, i.e. taught lip-reading and speaking in a dominant majority language, to the exclusion of a sign language. This is the predominant method in oralism which is still a dominant feature in the teaching of Deaf children in many countries.

Table 3. Comparison between oral and Deaf minority children in relation to the UN genocide definition in Article II(E), 'forcibly transferring children of the group to another group' Children are forcibly transferred ORAL indigenous or minority children in dominant/majority language medium submersion programmes (which exclude the minority languages)

DEAF minority children born to hearing parents in oralismoriented dominant/majority language medium submersion programmes (which exclude sign languages)

FROM

the child's mother tongue (MT) by origin (=parents' MT)

the child's only possible MT by competence (= the language the child knows best; here: the only language that a Deaf child can express herself fully in) TO A dominant/majority (oral and written) language, which Is NOT the parents' MT IS the parents' MT This leads to forced assimilation and, without massive extra risk of negative consequences grave risks in relation to efforts outside formal education, for linguistic competence, cognitive and linguistic to school achievement, identity development, school development, etc achievement, identity development, etc There is also a wealth of research and statistics about the mental harm that forced assimilation causes in education and otherwise. As most Deaf people would be prepared to witness, assimilationist submersion education where minorities are taught through the medium of dominant languages, where for instance Deaf students are taught orally only and where sign languages have no place in the curriculum, often causes mental harm, including serious prevention or delay of cognitive growth potential. Is this genocide? Yes, because - both groups, oral and Deaf minority children, are forcibly transferred to another language group (Article II e) - the subtractive education may cause serious mental harm to the children (Article II b). For Deaf children the harm caused is obviously still much greater than for oral children. Why? Trying to force Deaf children to become oral only, to the exclusion of sign languages and preventing them from fully developing a sign language in formal education, deprives them of the chance of learning through this education the only type of language through which they can fully express themselves. Since they do not share this mother tongue with their parents, they are completely dependent on formal education to really develop it to the highest possible level. Since all forms of genocide are crimes against humanity, and oralism in formal education is an instance of linguistic genocide, oralism in the formal education of Deaf children is a crime against humanity.

2. Sign languages and Killer languages Next we shall discuss Killer languages and relate them to Sign languages. Again, we start with a definition. What is a Killer language? Is being a Killer language a characteristic of some languages that they necessarily have? No - almost any language can become a Killer language. When ”big” languages are learned subtractively (at the cost of the mother tongues) rather than additively (in addition to mother tongues), they become Killer languages. "Being” a Killer language is NOT a characteristic of a language. It is a question of how a language functions in relation to other languages. ANY language can become a Killer language in relation to some other language. Killer languages pose serious threats

towards the linguistic diversity of the world. English is today the world’s most important Killer language. ALL oral languages can, through enforced oralism, function as Killer languages, in relation to Sign languages. Official/national oral languages may be especially important killer languages vis-a-vis Sign languages. But Sign languages can also become Killer languages. Big Sign languages, when learned subtractively, at the cost of small Sign languages, can become killer languages. Usually a country makes only one Sign language official (if any. This may kill all other Sign languages in the country The American Sign Language may pose serious threats towards all other Sign languages, if it is learned subtractively. It may be the worst killer language among Sign languages. There is a lot of beautiful UNESCO, UN and national rhetoric about the importance of maintaining all the world's languages. They are part of the heritage of humanity. With the death of every language, a vast library dies. True. UNESCO's recently adopted Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (adopted: at the 31st session of UNESCO’s General Conference, Paris, France, October 15-November 3, 2001) calls for action against the homogenisation that is a result of languages disappearing: Cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognised and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations. (Article 1) Stephen Wurm sums up many of the arguments for the need of linguistic diversity in The Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing: Each language reflects a unique world-view and culture complex, mirroring the manner in which a speech community has resolved its problems in dealing with the world, and has formulated its thinking, its system of philosophy and understanding of the world around it. In this, each language is the means of expression of the intangible cultural heritage of people, and it remains a reflection of this culture for some time even after the culture which underlies it decays and crumbles, often under the impact of an intrusive, powerful, usually metropolitan, different culture. However, with the death and disappearance of such a language, an irreplaceable unit in our knowledge and understanding of human thought and world-view is lost forever. (Wurm, ed. 2001: 13). All of this is obviously true of all the world’s Sign languages too. They reflect a unique world-view and culture complex.. They mirror the manner in which the Deaf speech communities have resolved their problems in dealing with the world, and have formulated their thinking, their systems of philosophy and understanding of the world around them. They are the means of expression of the intangible cultural heritage of Deaf people. Therefore, with the death and disappearance of any Sign language, an irreplaceable unit in our knowledge and understanding of human thought and world-view is lost forever But despite all the nice rhetoric about the value of every single language, linguistic homogenising efforts seem to be gaining strength, judging by the actions of governments and the corporate world. Education participates, as we have seen. But medical experts may also participate.

3. Advice on cochlear implants and other issues – the responsibility of ”experts” (including medical doctors) When parents need advice on whether or not to have a cochlear implant operated on their child, they usually discuss it with experts and with other parents, and sometimes also children or youngsters who have had the operation. The experts are often medical doctors, and they certainly know a lot about the medical aspects of the operation. But there seems to be a strong tendency in many countries where medical doctors are also giving advice about other than medical aspects of the operation - and here they are NOT experts at all. They may give advice about the social and cultural consequences of the operation - that they mostly know little about - and they may give advice on the linguistic and pedagogical/educational aspects of what the parents should or should not do. And this is where a lot of misunderstandings and wrong advice may occur. Medical doctors may advice parents NOT to use Sign with the children. Cochlear implants do NOT change Deaf children into hearing children. Misunderstandings about what cochlear implants can and cannot do may lead to subtractive learning situations where the false hopes about implants prevent proper teaching of and through the medium of Sign languages. Thus Deaf children with cochlear implants may never have a chance of acquiring and learning the language that is their only possible mother tongue. Medical doctors can be competent in giving solid advice about medical aspects of cochlear implants for Deaf children. Most of them are incompetent in giving advice about whether or not the children should learn Sign languages and through what medium they should be taught. Medical doctors who advise parents of Deaf children with implants NOT to teach Sign language to the children, or who advice parents to encourage oralism at the expense of Sign, or who advice to place children in schools with teaching through the medium of oral languages, act in incompetent and immoral ways.

4. Glorification, stigmatisation, rationalisation - how are Deaf resources constructed as invisible and as handicaps? Competence in a Sign language (or any minority language) could be seen as LINGUISTIC CAPITAL, as a precious and valuable resource. Is it always seen like this? NO. Competence in the official language(s) of a country and competence in English (and a few other “international” languages) are normally seen as important resources, resources, as linguistic capital, capital, whereas competence in minority languages is often invalidated. How can competence in Sign languages be invalidated? I shall show to you something about how power and resources can be converted or constructed as non-convertible. I shall distinguish between structural power and resource power, and resources will be divided into material and non-material resources (see Figure 1)

Convertability of power and resources 3 Structural powe r

Material resources

Non-material resources

Validation process Invalidated, not convertible to other forms of powe r & resources

Validated, thus convertab le

Structural power is power on the basis of one’s structural position in society. A president, a director of a company, a general, all have power on the basis of their position. They can make a lot of decisions that affect other people's lives. Teachers and parents have structural power vis-a-vis children. Material resource power can be money, houses, cars, paintings, books, weapons, a high salary; any concrete material possessions Non-material resource power can be possessing knowledge, formal education, ideas, skills, competence in a language, etc. These forms of power are convertible, can be exchange to each other, in the following ways. Structural power can always be converted into the other two types of power. If you are in a high position, you normally also have a high salary. You can accumulate material possessions of many types. Likewise, you have access to knowledge, further training, etc that people with less structural power do not have, i.e. you can accumulate non-material resources. Material resource power can also be converted into the other two types of power. Money can buy you a good formal education. You can afford to send your children to a good school and university. You can afford to buy books, subscribe to papers and journals, travel, take courses. All of us know that it is impossible to become elected to a high political position unless you have a lot of money for the election campaign - only millionaires and friends of the corporate world who can raise a lot of money become presidents of the USA. How about non-material resource power - can it also be converted into the other two types of power? Under certain conditions, yes. All non-material resources have to go through a validation process where their value is being assessed. Those non-material resources that become assessed as valid, and valuable, can be converted into material resources and into positions of structural power. But other non-material resources are invalidated in the validation process. They are declared as more or less

valueless. They are made invisible, or they can even be declared as handicaps, not resources. And if something is made invisible or declared as a handicap, not a resource, then naturally it cannot be converted into material resources or positions of structural power. The important issue is then: who is it that does this validation? Which groups in society are allowed to assess the value of non-material resources? These groups are those who already have many material resources and a lot of structural power, the elites of various kinds. And what they do is to declare the type of non-material resources that they themselves possess, as valuable and valid, and to declare other people's, often oppresses people's, non-material resources as invalid. This means that it is their knowledge, their culture, their traditions, their languages, their type of education, their ways of life, that are declared valid. The knowledges, traditions, languages, ways of life, etc, of others are declared valueless. This also means that the unequal power relationships in society are reproduced. Inequality continues. My question to you is: Have Sign languages been INVALIDATED, made invisible, so that they (and Deafness) are seen as handicaps, not resources? If so, a competence in a Sign language is not convertible to other forms of power & resources. My next question is, then: What are the processes through which some non-material resources are validated and others are invalidated? I claim that the reproduction of unequal power relations happens through colonizing the consciousness of people so that they believe in the results of the validation process. This happens through the three processes of glorification, stigmatization and rationalization. What happens in these three processes is the following: 1. GLORIFY the majority/dominant group, its language, culture, norms, traditions, institutions, level of development, observance of human rights etc. QUESTION: does this happen in relation to oral (and written) languages? 2. STIGMATIZE and devalue the minorities/subordinated groups, their languages, cultures, norms, traditions, institutions, level of development, observance of human rights etc so that they are seen as traditional, backward, not able to adapt to a postmodern technological information society. QUESTION: does this happen today in relation to Sign languages? 3. RATIONALIZE the relationship between the majority/dominant group and the minority/dominated group economically, politically, psychologically, educationally, sociologically, linguistically, etc., so that what the dominant group/s do/es always seems functional, and beneficial to the minorities/subordinated groups (the majority is "helping", "giving aid", "civilizing", "modernizing", "teaching democracy", "granting rights", "protecting world peace", etc QUESTION: does this happen in relation to oral (and written) languages and Sign languages? The conclusion is that if Sign languages have been INVALIDATED and they (and Deafness) are seen as handicaps, then competence in a Sign language, the Deaf’s linguistic capital, is not convertible 1. to other non-material resources, 2. to other forms of capital, material resources, or 3. to positions of structural power

5. Where are the linguistic human rights (LHRs) of the Deaf in education? 5.1. What are Linguistic Human Rights? I have worked for many years with linguistic human rights. I am now asking: Could linguistic human rights be used to revalidate Sign languages? Could they be used to de-stigmatise Sign languages? Could the be used to deconstruct the wrong rationalisations of the relationship between oral languages and Sign languages? Could linguistic human rights (LHRs) support Deaf children in becoming highlevel multilingual? Where are the LHRs of the Deaf in education? I claim that the Deaf today have even fewer linguistic human rights than oral minorities. I shall use as an example of how the Deaf are even today being excluded from linguistic human rights the exclusion of Sign languages from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; this has obviously been the responsibility of politicians. First we have to ask ourselves: What are linguistic human rights? There have been various language rights for a long time, in constitutions and in agreements between countries. But all language rights are not linguistic human rights. Only those rights are human rights that are so necessary and fundamental that it is impossible or difficult to live a dignified life without them. When we put together human rights and language rights, we get Linguistic Human Rights (LHRs). Linguistic human rights are those language rights (of both individuals and groups) that are so fundamental for a dignified life that no state is allowed to violate them. The concept of LHRs is very new in international human rights law, and it is still unclear which language rights should be LHRs (see my 2000 book for a thorough discussion of LHRs in education - the list of contents of it is on my home page, http://babel.ruc.dk/~tovesku/; see also Jokinen 2000). Linguistic Human Rights might be one way of • preventing linguistic genocide, • promoting the maintenance of linguistic diversity • promoting high-levels of multilingualism through education Obviously all of us want to prevent linguistic genocide. We also saw in the quotations from UNESCO and Stephen Wurm earlier that the linguistic diversity of the world, including all the world's Sign languages, should be maintained. All Deaf people also want to learn several languages up to a high level, to become high level multilinguals, and the educational system should support them in this - that should be one of their LHRs. But before starting to look at LHRs, or, rather, the lack of them, in education, I want to present to you one more argument for why Deaf children should become high level multilinguals through education, an argument that looks more into the future. This is the creativity argument. 5.2. The relationship between education, high levels of multilingualism and creativity Creativity and new ideas are the main assets (cultural capital) in a knowledge society and a prerequisite for humankind to adapt to change and to find solutions to the catastrophes of our own making. Multilingualism enhances creativity, monolingualism and homogenisation kill it. To show this, I want to compare industrial societies and information/knowledge societies.

In industrial societies, the main products are/were commodities: food, fridges, clothes, cars, etc. In them, those who control access to raw materials and own the other prerequisites and means of production, do well. In contrast, in a knowledge society or information society, even if commodities continue to be produced, the main products are knowledge and ideas. In a knowledge society, those who have access to diverse knowledges, diverse information, diverse ideas, i.e. products of creativity, do well. In knowledge societies uniformity is a handicap. Some uniformity might have promoted certain aspects of industrialisation, but in post-industrial knowledge societies uniformity will be a definite handicap. We know now that creativity, innovation, and investment are related, and can be results of additive teaching and multilingualism. Often politicians say that mother tongue medium teaching (for instance teaching all Deaf children through the medium of a Sign language, with good teaching, by bilingual teachers, of a dominant written language as a second language, or teaching Spanish-speaking children in the USA through the medium of Spanish, with good teaching, given by bilingual teachers, of English as a second language), is much too expensive. The creativity-related economic argument (there are many other types of argument too) for mother tongue medium teaching runs as follows: 1. Creativity precedes innovation, also in commodity production. 2. Investment follows creativity. 3. Multilingualism enhances creativity. 4. High-level multilinguals as a group do better than corresponding monolinguals on tests measuring several aspects of 'intelligence', creativity, divergent thinking, cognitive flexibility, etc., and 5. Additive teaching often leads to high-level multilingualism. Therefore, again, additive teaching, through the medium of indigenous and minority children's mother tongues (or though minority languages, i.e. second languages, for linguistic dominant group children, in immersion or two-way-immersion programmes), is necessary. Sign language users can become high level multilinguals if their education is properly organised, i.e. if they receive most of their education through the medium of Sign languages, with good teaching of additional languages, given by teachers who also know Sign languages. Metalinguistic awareness is the main causal factor in the benefits resulting from high levels of multilingualism. Creativity is one of those benefits. What is metalinguistic awareness? It means knowing how languages work. It means being able to look at one's own (or other) language/s both from the inside (being able to use it/them, without needing to all the time think consciously of the hundreds of choices one makes all the time when using a language) but at the same time being able to look at it from the outside, so to say, to treat is as an object to reflect upon. Metalinguistic awareness grows when one compares two or more languages (and everybody who learns an additional language in addition to the mother tongue/first language, does compare, even if one does not necessarily verbalise, put into words, that comparison, and even if one does not have the grammatical concepts to discuss the languages). If the languages that people become bi- or multilingual in, differ from each other maximally, this enhances the development of metalinguistic awareness. Sign languages differ maximally from any spoken/written languages and can therefore enhance metalinguistic awareness maximally. Therefore we can expect high level multilingual Sign language users as a group to be more creative than corresponding monolinguals or even people who are high level multilinguals in several spoken/written languages.

But do Deaf people have those LHRs, most importantly the right to mother tongue medium education, that would make them high level multilingual, with all the benefits that this would create for them and the societies where they live? 5.3. Educational LHRs in international law Do binding Articles in international or European human rights instruments grant basic linguistic human rights to linguistic minorities, especially in education? NO. Language disappears in binding educational paragraphs in human rights instruments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): the paragraph on education (26) does not refer to language at all. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) mentions language on a par with race, colour, sex, religion, etc. in its general Article (2.2). Its educational Article (13.1) explicitly refer to 'racial, ethnic or religious groups' but omits reference to language or linguistic groups: ... education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups ... (emphasis added) Binding educational clauses of human rights instruments have more opt-outs, modifications, alternatives, etc than other Articles. Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, both in force since 1998. We take as an example the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Part III, Education Art. 8. The Education Article includes a range of modifications, including ‘as far as possible’, ‘relevant’, ‘appropriate’, ‘where necessary’, ‘pupils who so wish in a number considered sufficient’, ‘if the number of users of a regional or minority language justifies it’, as well as a number of alternatives, as in ‘to allow, encourage or provide teaching in or of the regional or minority language at all the appropriate stages of education’. The opt-outs and alternatives in the Charter permit a reluctant state to meet the requirements in a minimalist way, which it can legitimate by claiming that a provision was not ‘possible’ or ‘appropriate’, or that numbers were not ‘sufficient’ or did not ‘justify’ a provision, or that it ‘allowed’ the minority to organise teaching of their language as a subject, at their own cost. 5.4.Arguments used for excluding Sign languages from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 5.4.1. The arguments But even if there were some binding educational linguistic human rights, Sign language users can still be excluded from them. Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages grants some rights to those languages that states choose to ratify it for. A state can choose 1. which languages it wants to apply the charter to, and 2. which paragraphs it wants to apply (in which domains and at what level it grants protection). Signing a human rights instrument (a Charter, a Covenant, a Convention, etc) means that a state promises to follow it, and to change its laws so that they agree with what they promise. When those changes have been made, a state ratifies the instrument. You can check the signatures and ratifications

of both the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, both in force since 1998, on the internet at http:// conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htm; their treaty numbers are 148 and 158. At the WFD Congress, I showed the status of them as per 12.05.2003. My question is: Are there any Sign languages in the ratifications? The answer is: NOT ONE SINGLE COUNTRY has signed or ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages for any Sign language so far (January 2004). What is the official argumentation for excluding Sign languages? Let's examine it. Fernando Albanese, from the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe (now retired), replied in writing the following, when Verena Krausneker asked him about this, for her Master's Thesis (at the University of Vienna, 1998): I do not think on the basis of the information in my possession that the Charter applies to Sign Languages. In any case, such a problem was never raised during the negotiations of the Charter. the Sign Languages are connected with a handicap and not with the membership to a group, ethnically, religiously or linguistically different from the majority of the population of a state. The 'difference in respect of the official language(s) of the State' is missing, because 'If I understand it correctly, Sign Languages are means of communication within any language’ (Krausneker 1998: 22; emphasis added). Mr. Albanese thus claimed two things: 1. The Deaf do not fulfil the requirements of being a minority 2. Sign languages do not fulfil the requirements for being regional or minority languages. My two questions are: 1. Do the Deaf fulfil the requirements of being a minority or do they not? 2. Do Sign languages fulfil the requirements for being regional or minority languages or do they not? 5.4.2. Are the Deaf a linguistic minority? We start with the first question: are the Deaf a (linguistic) minority? Minorities are defined in several ways. Characteristics that are listed in most minority definitions are the following: A. Numbers; B. Dominance is used in some but not others ('in an inferior and non-dominant position', Andrýsek 1989: 60; 'in a non-dominant position', Capotorti 1979: 96); C. Ethnic or religious or linguistic traits, features or characteristics, or cultural bonds and ties which are (markedly) different from those of the rest of the population (in most definitions); D. A will/wish (if only implicit) to safeguard, or preserve, or strengthen the patterns of life and behaviour, or culture, or traditions, or religion, or language of the group E. Citizenship/nationality in the state concerned is required in most definitions. A typical definition of minority is the following (it comes from Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994 and is based on a definition by Council of Europe's committee called Democracy through Law): A group which is smaller in number than the rest of the population of a State, whose members have ethnic, religious or linguistic features different from those of the rest of the population, and

are guided, if only implicitly, by the will to safeguard their culture, traditions, religion or language. Any group coming within the terms of this definition shall be treated as an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority. To belong to a minority shall be a matter of individual choice. Thus we can deconstruct Mr. Albanese's arguments 1. The Deaf fulfill all the criteria and are thus a national minority 1. they are as a group 'smaller in number than the rest of the population of a State; 2. they 'have … linguistic features different from those of the rest of the population'; and 3. they have, through their organizations, shown 'the will to safeguard their culture, traditions … or language.' 5.4.3. Are Sign languages minority languages? What about question 2? Do Sign languages fulfil the requirements for being regional or minority languages or do they not? Here we have to look at how the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages defines minority languages for the purposes of the Charter. This is what the Charter includes: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages ; Article 1, Definitions: a. For the purposes of this Charter “regional or minority languages” means languages that are: i. traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and ii. different from the official language(s) of that State; It does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants If we only look at this definition, Sign languages would NOT be included. Why? Because Deaf people in most cases (even if there are some exceptions) do NOT live in a compact group only in a certain territory of their country. Mostly they live dispersed all over the country. But then the Definitions in Article 1 continue: c. "non-territorial languages” means languages used by nationals of the State which differ from the language or languages used by the rest of the State's population but which, although traditionally used within the territory of the State, cannot be identified with a particular area thereof. This is where Sign languages come in. Now we can deconstruct the second argument and answer the question: Sign languages ARE minority languages, according to the requirements of the Charter. Sign languages are complete, independent languages. They are not related to oral languages in the countries where they exist. All languages, written, spoken and signed, are ”means of communication”. Sign languages are historical languages. Most languages in the world (at least 2/3 of oral languages) do not have a writing system or are not used habitually for writing.

Our Conclusion then is that the Deaf are a linguistic minority, and Sign languages are minority languages, in the sense of the European Charter. Therefore, Sign languages should be included in the ratifications. Today, they have been illegitimately excluded.

6. What Linguistic Human Rights should Deaf children have in education? Finally, we can then ask what LHRs Deaf children should have in education. I have formulated it in the following way (see my 2000 book for details). At an individual level, Deaf children should have Linguistic Human Rights in relation to the following four 1. The mother tongue(s) 2. Other languages 3. The relationship between the mother tongue(s) and other languages 4. Being able to profit from education Table 4 gives a more detailed list of these rights:

Table 4. Linguistic human rights in education: What should a universal covenant of LHRs guarantee to individuals? A UNIVERSAL COVENANT OF LINGUISTIC HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD GUARANTEE AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, IN RELATION TO THE MOTHER TONGUE(S) that everybody has the right to - identify with their mother tongue(s) and have this identification accepted and respected by others; - learn the mother tongue(s) fully, orally (when physiologically possible) and in writingi. This presupposes that minorities are educated mainly through the medium of their mother tongue(s), and within the state-financed educational system; - use the mother tongue in most official situations (including schools). OTHER LANGUAGES - that everybody whose mother tongue is not an official language in the country where s/he is resident, has the right to become bilingual (or trilingual, if s/he has 2 mother tongues) in the mother tongue(s) and (one of) the official language(s) (according to her own choice). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGES - that any change of mother tongue is voluntary (includes knowledge of long-term consequences), not imposed. PROFIT FROM EDUCATION - that everybody has the right to profit from education, regardless of what her mother tongue is.

Are this kind of rights supported in other documents from international organizations? Yes. The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities from OSCE's High Commissioner on National Minorities () summarize what the international obligations should be. For minorities, mother tongue medium education is recommended at all levels, also in secondary education. This includes bilingual teachers in the dominant language as a second language (Art. 11-13). The Explanatory Notes to the Hague Recommendations condemn the submersion education that most indigenous peoples and most minorities in the world, including most Deaf children, suffer from today: [S]ubmersion-type approaches whereby the curriculum is taught exclusively through the medium of the State language and minority children are entirely integrated into classes with children of the majority are not in line with international standards'(The Explanatory Note, p. 5). UNESCO has recently published a Position Paper called Education in a multilingual world which is supposed to replace UNESCO’s classic book, The use of vernacular languages in education (Paris, 1953). I quote some of its Principles and definitions: Principle I UNESCO supports mother tongue instruction as a means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and experience of the learners and teachers. (I) Mother tongue instruction is essential for initial instruction and literacy and should ”be extended to as late a stage in education as possible”… (III) With regard to teacher training and mother tongue instruction : ”All educational planning should include at each stage early provision for the training, and further training, of sufficient numbers of fully competent and qualified teachers of the country concerned who are familiar with the life of their people and able to teach in the mother tongue” Principle II UNESCO supports bilingual and/or multilingual education at all levels of education as a means of promoting both social and gender equality and as a key element of linguistically diverse societies. Principle III UNESCO supports language as an essential component of intercultural education in order to encourage understanding between different population groups and ensure respect for fundamental rights. (I) Measures should be taken ”to eliminate discrimination in education at all levels on the basis of gender, race, language, religion, national origin, age or disability or any other form of discrimination”. (II)- the implementation of ”the right to learn in the mother tongue” and the ”full use of culturally appropriate teaching methods of communication and transmission of knowledge”; the teaching of and through, not only the mother tongue, but also the national or official languages, as well as global languages of communication, so that minority and indigenous peoples have the opportunity to participate in and contribute to the larger community." (III) Education should raise ”awareness of the positive value of cultural [and linguistic] diversity… The document can be downloaded at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129728e.pdf

(it is available in English, French and Spanish). UNESCO has also worked with endangered languages. The International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages at UNESCO, Paris-Fontenoy, 10-12 March 2003, accepted ”Recommendations for Action Plans”, based on a report accepted at the same meeting, called "Language Vitality and Endangerment”. The Report and the Action plan had been prepared by UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Unit’s Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages and they were approved 31 March 2003 by the participants of the International Expert Meeting. The Report contains (at my suggestion, which was accepted without voting) the following Note (Note 2): Throughout this document, the term language includes Sign languages, and speech or endangered language communities also refer to Sign language communities. This means that Sign languages are now seen by UNESCO as languages on a par with other languages, and Sign language communities can now refer to the fact that UNESCO sees them as language communities whose languages may be endangered. Let's work together so that no Sign languages need to be endangered and so that all Deaf children are granted their basic linguistic human rights, and especially in education. References: Janulf, Pirjo (1998). Kommer finskan i Sverige att fortleva? En studie av språkkunskaper och språkanvändning hos andragenerationens sverigefinnar i Botkyrka och hos finlandssvenskar i Åbo. (Will Finnish survive in Sweden? A study of language skills and language use among second generation Sweden Finns in Botkyrka, Sweden, and Finland Swedes in Åbo, Finland). Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Fennica Stockholmiensia 7. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Jokinen, Markku (2000). The linguistic human rights of Sign language users. In Phillipson, Robert (ed.) (2000). Rights to language. Equity, power and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 203-213. Krausneker, Verena (1998). Sign Languages in the Minority Languages Policy of the European Union. MA-thesis, September 1998. Vienna: University of Vienna. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000). Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove & Phillipson, Robert (1994). Linguistic human rights, past and present. In Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove & Phillipson, Robert (eds.), in collaboration with Mart Rannut. Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 67. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 71-110. Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.) (2001). Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Second edition. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

i.

An alternative formulation (instead of referring to sign languages through the 'orally (when physiologically possible)' was suggested by Timothy Reagan (personal communication, December 1998): '... learn the mother tongue(s) in natural, communicative settings, and in writing'. But even this may be misused: some people might claim that a signing community (which might necessitate boarding school education at least for those 90% of deaf children who have hearing parents) is not a 'natural' communicative setting. A task for the reader: find an inclusive formulation which cannot be misused!